 Good morning everybody and thank you for tuning in today. Governor Scott is currently attending a weekly White House call regarding the pandemic and will be down joining us shortly. I want to start today by providing a weekly data and modeling update and following me will be Jenny Samuelson, the Deputy Secretary of the Agency of Human Services who will provide an update regarding Vermont's vaccination program and then of course Dr. Levine providing his usual health update. Our recent COVID-19 data provides a really optimistic picture for both the coming weeks and also the coming months. In the short term the steady declines in our case rates give us greater confidence that we're now moving in the right direction in Vermont and in the longer term Vermont's strong vaccine uptake means that we're on track to meet our May 1st goal in the Vermont Forward Plan and we're also on track to have a more normal summer this year compared to the last 14 months. This week Vermont is reporting 797 new COVID-19 cases, 252 fewer cases than last week and 435 fewer cases than the week before when we recorded an all-time high. As you can see our seven-day case rate is down 24% over the last seven days and since April 1st our case rate is down 39%. All of this occurring while Vermont continues to be a leader in testing per capita across the country. When we look at the cases by age you can see clearly that the younger demographics that drove transmission at the end of March are now the primary reason for why cases are falling so quickly with cases among this demographic down 33% over the last two weeks. COVID-19 cases are also down on college campuses. Each of the prior four weeks reported over 100 cases on campus. However, this week we are reporting 47 cases, a decrease which is consistent with the larger age demographic. I do want to highlight an important point. These lower case numbers among younger Vermonters are likely not the result of vaccination. These age groups just became fully eligible and as you can see from the chart the vaccine coverage is still relatively low in that youngest age group. So it seems much more likely that the decrease is due to behavioral changes whether it's being more cautious following the public health guidance, spending more time outdoors. But we do want to thank younger Vermonters for helping slow the spread as we continue to work to get vaccines to those who are more vulnerable and also request that they keep it up because as you know, once we let our guard down, things can quickly move in the opposite direction. Cases have also generally improved across the state with 11 over months, 14 counties seeing their case rates fall this week, including Orleans, which saw a considerable decrease compared to last week. And even in the counties that did see an increase, those increases were relatively mild. So again, this is painting a very favorable picture. With the recent favorable trends, our forecast paints an optimistic outlook for the weeks ahead and both the ensemble, CDC ensemble model and the Oliver Wyman model forecast that cases are expected to decline in the coming weeks. We continue to see encouraging uptake of the vaccine among our population. Per the CDC, Vermont remains to be one of the highest in terms of its 65 and older population that have started or completed vaccination today standing at an impressive 93.6% of that population. And we also remain in the top 10 states in terms of doses administered and the percent of our population that is fully vaccinated. And we continue to remain optimistic about the ultimate percentage of Vermonters who will get vaccinated as survey data continues to rank Vermont as one of the least hesitant states in the country when it comes to the vaccine, which will ultimately be the key to making our community safer, our economy stronger and life more normal. Even with the pause in Johnson and Johnson last week, Vermont continues to be on the pace to meet our upcoming May 1 vaccination range laid out under the Vermont Forward Plan. And again, even without the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, we anticipate having enough supply to meet these targets. So hitting these marks will continue to rely on Vermonters stepping up and getting vaccinated in the weeks ahead. Just look at how important vaccines have been to Vermont to date. Given the higher case rates that we've experienced over the winter, we estimate that 120 lives have been saved by the vaccine to date here in Vermont, totaling about half of all the COVID-19 fatalities we've experienced today. All because of these powerful vaccines and because Vermonters are willing to get vaccinated. Turning to hospitalizations, we see that the rates continue to be rather stable with the overall trend decreasing slightly this week. Again, we anticipate that our hospital numbers will fall more significantly once we have fuller vaccine coverage among that 50 to 64 population, which we hope to do in the upcoming weeks. And we're also thankfully continuing to see the impact of vaccines on keeping our fatality rates lower. We are now more than halfway through April and the number of fatalities is down compared to March. And we anticipate that deaths will continue to trend down in the weeks and months ahead. Across the region, cases and hospitalizations are also improving with cases down about 10% compared to last week. And every state in the region saw a decrease in its case rates with the exception of Maine. But generally, this is really the first clear sign that we've had in weeks that the COVID-19 situation is starting to improve in the states that surround Vermont as well, which will certainly be helpful to us in the upcoming weeks and months. Now at this point, I would like to turn the presentation over to Deputy Secretary Samuelson. Good morning, I'm Deputy Secretary Jenny Samuelson of the Agency of Human Services. Secretary Smith is taking some much deserved time off this week. So I'll provide you with today's update on our progress with vaccinations. First, I'm happy to share that yesterday, we reached an important milestone. All Vermonters age 16 and older are now eligible to receive vaccinations. A year ago, we could not have predicted that we would have a vaccine or that that vaccine would be available to all Vermonters who are eligible. We are also very encouraged by the robust response to the vaccination program for all age groups. As you know, we opened registration for Vermonters age 16 to 18 on Saturday. And yesterday we opened registration for the rest of the 16 and older age group. So far, just over 47,000 individuals between the ages of 16 and 29 have made an appointment to be vaccinated, representing 40% of that age group. Turning to BIPOC Vermonters and household members, I'm excited to continue to see the gap close. 18,000 individuals have been have made appointments and have been vaccinated in the BIPOC population. As a reminder, you can make an appointment on the state's website at healthvermont.gov backslash my vaccine. If you're unable to sign up online, you can make an appointment by calling 855-722-7878. Press one if you need an interpreter. In terms of our overall progress, as of this morning, 295,128 individuals have been vaccinated against COVID-19. 93,750 have received their first dose of vaccine, and 201,378 have received their first and last dose. We have made remarkable progress here in Vermont. Vermonters are known to stick together through difficult times. And this is just another example of our extraordinary resilience and dedication to doing the right thing. Thank you to all. At this time, I'd like to turn it over to Dr. Levine for a health update. Thank you very much. I think I will continue the predominantly good news theme. As you've noted, we are starting to see our data trending in a much more positive direction now, with low daily case numbers in the 60s to highs in the hundreds. Our positivity rate has also crept down to 1.5% now. Hospitalizations, as you saw on the slide, are relatively steady. Today, 23, which is a little lower than we've been experiencing, with six in the ICU. Fortunately, in the last several days, there have been no deaths. And as Commissioner Pichek stated, the number remains low so far. I do want to let you know that the reporting system that we use for COVID-19 data is undergoing scheduled maintenance right this second. This will temporarily impact our ability to report cases. This means the data is not available. And the dashboard will not be updated today. It will be updated as usual tomorrow. And case information will be assigned to the day that they would have normally been reported. We thank you for your patience as we complete this important work. On another data related note, Vermont has now performed one and a half million COVID-19 tests. And more than 372,000 people have been tested. It's really an incredible accomplishment, especially in comparison to the early days of the pandemic, when at one point, we didn't know if we even had enough supplies to test people the next day. Now, just last month, we had a high of nearly 19,000 tests reported in a day. I want to thank everyone involved in running Vermont test sites, those working in the labs to process the specimens, and those who work to provide this data. But it is really Vermonters who have helped us to reach this point. Your willingness to get tested, and your understanding of why it is so important, has been essential to slowing the spread of the virus. Now we're finally in a place where testing is highly accessible. It's still free and easy to do. And with Vermont's new travel policy, which requires a test within three days of travel for anyone who was unvaccinated, we expect that everyone will continue getting tested, helping to catch any cases quickly. As always, anyone with a possible exposure to the virus, or with a possible COVID-19 symptom, should also get tested and stay home and away from others while they await their result. This is how we make sure everyone gets the appropriate guidance to protect their own health, their loved ones and their communities. I'd like to turn now to a topic that's been in the news, what are called vaccine breakthrough cases. Like with other vaccines, there will be some people who will still get sick, even though the vaccines are working as expected. Because as effective as they are, no vaccines are 100% effective at preventing illness. So there may be some people who get COVID-19, even once they're fully vaccinated. But this is a very small percentage. The CDC has released some new data. And as of April 13 of this year, more than 75 million people in the U.S. had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 since December 14, 2020. During the same timeframe, CDC received 5,814 reports of vaccine breakthrough infections from 43 U.S. states and territories. As of that last week, there had been 104 cases of vaccine breakthrough in Vermont, which I believe now has been updated to 125. If you look at the CDC numbers, they estimate .007% as the rate of breakthrough. According to the national data, these COVID-19 cases were in people of all ages. 45% were 60 or older. 65% female. 29% had no symptoms. Importantly, just 396 people nationwide, 7% with breakthrough infections were known to be hospitalized, and 74 or 1% died. Now, because this U.S. data relies on voluntary reporting from state health departments, it is likely not a complete picture. And there may be breakthrough cases not identified because some people don't get tested. But it's important to note that these are still rare events. Reporting them gives us a chance to help identify patients and look for signals among vaccine breakthrough cases. Again, and this is key, this is even more evidence that these vaccines are highly effective. And in the unlikely event, a person develops a breakthrough case, the evidence is quite clear. This episode will be on the mild end of the disease spectrum. All of this is a reminder of why we need to get the pandemic under control and get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible to lower the risk of spread to anyone. In the meantime, we all need to keep our prevention efforts up, wearing masks, keeping a distance and avoiding crowds in public until we get closer to that goal. After several months of limited vaccine supply, we are really proud we can now say that all Vermonters age 16 and over can make an appointment. I appreciate all your patience and understanding to get us here. This is a tremendous public health achievement. So if you haven't yet made your appointment, I urge you to make one as soon as you can. This is how we get back our lives together once again. And when you do get that shot, remember to keep in mind that it's two weeks after your final dose that your body has a chance to mount its full immune response. It's not much longer to wait. And being fully protected is worth that weight. Finally, here's some good news we can look ahead to in terms of vaccinating the next group of younger Vermonters. Earlier this month, Pfizer requested to expand use of its COVID-19 vaccine to adolescents age 12 to 15. As you know, the current emergency use authorization originally granted by the FDA is for people age 16 and up. Pfizer BioNTech has set its phase three clinical trials showed its vaccine was safe and almost 100% effective in younger teenagers ages 12 to 15. The data has yet to be reviewed by independent experts. But if approved, we believe the current timeline might allow us to start vaccinating this age group sometime in May or in June. This will not only help us achieve community immunity faster, but also get these adolescents protected before school begins in the fall. We remain ready to use all the work we've done so far. Lessons learned and critical partnerships to vaccinate these younger Vermonters when the time comes. The governor has not yet returned from the White House phone call. So we'll begin the question and answer period now. Thank you, Dr. Lee. So either a question for you or deputy Secretary Samuelson. So I'm wondering what Vermonters who are waiting on the Johnson and Johnson shot. What they should be doing right now. For instance, we heard from a viewer that her child's graduate college graduation is in late May. But right now, she needs the Johnson and Johnson shots. The only way that she can get that in the pen. So I guess what would you advise and what's the timeline for J and J going forward? Yeah, so you know, it's a very challenging question to answer. The advisory committee for immunization practice has set its meeting time, and it is this Friday from 11 till five. So we don't expect to hear a final word from them till late that day at the earliest, possibly in that evening. But we do expect building on a little bit of what has been coming out of Washington thus far that there will be a decision made that day. I assume they'll make that decision based on the cases they already have, as well as perhaps a few others that have come in, because they've been really requesting that the clinical community, now that they have knowledge about this and insight, submit any case that might be even remotely connected, that it can be evaluated. Let's say a positive result comes of that, as we would expect, and the pause is stopped at that point in time. Will it be a pause that stopped for 100% of the population that's eligible? Or will it be a more focused pause? Will it be a small portion of the population that are warned not to take that vaccine? Really can't say either way. So it's very hard to give any vermoner the appropriate advice regarding the vaccine. I would still maintain optimism that the vaccine pause will end. So that can be helpful. But if the caller is calling regarding a young woman of college age, childbearing age, and that's a population that gets scrutinized by the panel very much on Friday, I can't guarantee what their answer will be, based on their statistical evaluation, as well as their clinical and real time look at the information as to how much harm or lack of harm there might be. So it's really hard when somebody's got a deadline date. And you want to try to help them as much as possible. But I don't think we can go out on a limb on this one. And even members of the ACIP, who I've been in contact with, don't know what's going to happen on Friday yet. And they're still getting information to evaluate. So it's not like anyone's hiding anything. It's just that the process has to really go through. Well, save my second question. Actually, Dr. Levine, you can probably help me with this one. With the now everybody being eligible for the vaccine from 16 up, tremendous amount of people are eligible for for the vaccine. Have we geared up? Are there more people coming on board to help get these vaccinations done? I've heard a few folks who are surprised that their appointments are six, seven weeks out or more. I think it was late May. So they were just wondering, you know, is there they're shopping around there, they made their appointment, but but they're looking around to see if they can get something sooner. Are we gearing up? I think you guys had said something about doing that. Yeah, I'm part of that's going to actually help be helped answered by the governor when he comes back from the White House call about how much vaccines coming into the state. But Deputy Secretary Samuelson, did you have something to say about the appointments as they're stretching out at this time? So as Dr. Levine stated, the availability of vaccine really is dependent on what's coming into the state. We have the capacity to deliver the fact that what we have estimated would be the total vaccine that we have now and if Johnson and Johnson were approved, I can say that across the state, there's availability in mid May and all of the counties minus Grand Isle where where we will be adding an additional clinic in the next week or so. So I would strongly encourage those who are having appointments that are further out to continue to look because there is earlier availability. So if you have any advice for folks, keep looking. Yes, make sure you cancel the other appointment. Correct. Keep looking. Cancel the other appointment and don't forget to look at the pharmacies. CVS opens appointments every new appointments every day and all of their locations that they're vaccinating. So I would make sure to look there too. Thank you. Steve, I just wanted to add one point on that. You know, I know it's definitely frustrating in the next couple of weeks to, you know, have to wait, you know, three, six weeks, but it's actually really a good thing when you look at our vaccine uptake rates. Other states are seeing, you know, their appointments go unfilled. They're seeing the federal pharmacy where 50% of their pharmacies have availability in Vermont. We do have availability. It comes in those programs, but, you know, it's rare. So even though it's frustrating the short term, people should just understand it's really a good thing and it's going to serve us really well in the long term because it means Vermonters are stepping up to get that limited supply that we still have. Are any of you guys worried about, you know, does that putting people off? Say that again, Steve. Are you worried that, you know, that frustration with God, I'm way out here like this. It kind of puts people off with, with responding to, to get it. Like, well, it will make people more hesitant because they have to wait. Right. Yeah. So, you know, the survey data shows that Vermont's the least hesitant state in the country, I mean, tied with Massachusetts. So we, you know, and that's been consistent, you know, and people have been waiting months and months and months at this point. So I think people will understand that it's just a little bit longer. Great. Thanks. Zuri, NBC five. Hi, can you hear me? Dr. Levine, I was wondering if you can speak a little bit about vaccine hesitancy as it relates to the J and J vaccine. Do you think the monsters do want the J and J vaccine when the pause is listed? I can't tell you how many people have expressed disappointment about the pause. You know, originally long before the pause, people were worried that people didn't want the J and J because it had the 70% efficacy rate compared to 95%. And boy, were we surprised. The demand was quite intense. People in states that have a high or much more diverse population and have inner city areas that are much more racially diverse than Vermont were shocked to see that those populations actually were clamoring for the J and J as well. So that's been full of lots of surprises. Currently, as I said, I've been astonished at the number of people who are just very disappointed. Some of them not clearly understanding why the pause was important to do. And just saying, I'm ready to go. Please get me my shot. So I don't think we're going to find that kind of level of hesitancy. I also know that we've hypothesized and we, meaning the public health community in general, about how youth might like this more than the two dose vaccine as well, to be all done one time and that would be it. And I don't really hear that that attitude has changed either. So unless something comes out, that's very negative on Friday, which I really don't believe will happen. I don't think we're going to find that hesitancy is is our problem here, at least in Vermont, with regard to the J and J. Thank you. Lisa. Thank you for taking my call. This is a question also for Dr. Levine. I'm seeing in the state data that this past month we had an increase in cases in people like 10 to 19. And I'm wondering, has the state seen any cases of COVID related syndrome in children? So are you referring to the MIS-C, the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome? Right. So I'm glad you asked that because we had thought we might have one case and then in discussions with the CDC, it turned out that they didn't believe it met the criteria. So at the present time, to my knowledge, we have not identified any cases of the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome, just so the public understands that a little better. That's a syndrome that begins after one has had COVID. And it's most likely mediated on an inflammatory basis and the individual's own immune system. Generally around the country, a lot of concern around this, but again, not that much unfavorable outcomes, though certainly it causes a lot of concern amongst the clinical community and amongst families, of course. But so far so good here in Vermont with regard to that. And it's really nice to see that downturn that Commissioner Pichak showed in those younger age bands in this state. So hopefully we will have even less of a chance of registering cases of that. Okay. And then thank you. In terms of the Pfizer vaccine for younger teens to hope that the state might be able to vaccinate them in May or June, I think you said. So we should have enough supply for that, I think. By that point in time, you know, I think we were actually making projections looking at supply exceeding demand because we'll have been through so much of the population. So obviously if this happened May 1st, that would be a different equation, but no one's telegraphing to us that that's going to happen that early in the month. So hopefully it would be later in the course of the month and that won't be as much of an issue because we'll have gotten through this last set of registrants to a larger degree. So the government has also been kind of telegraphing to us all that Pfizer and Moderna are really being ramped up in production substantially and there's going to continue to be more and more of that coming into states. So I would think because Pfizer is the one we're talking about for this age group that there won't be as much of an issue. And Deputy Commissioner, Deputy Secretary Samuelson, we're talking 20,000, 22,000 or so people on the 12 to 15 age group. Yeah, so, you know, in the low 20,000s of teenagers, if they all took the vaccine at that point in time. So that would be well within what we could achieve here. Okay, thank you very much. Mike Donahue, the islander. Thanks, Jake. And my question is actually for Governor Scott. So if I can let a couple of people leapfrog over me and wait for the governor to rise, that'd be great. Thanks. Yeah, Greg Lambert from the County Carrier message me the same thing. So Lisa Loomis, if you're if you're ready, we'll go to you next morning. I do have a question for the governor, so please come back to me. But I also wanted to thank Mike Smith's office for getting me the information on the rates being paid to EMT. So Secretary Deputy Secretary Sanderson would pass that on. I appreciate it. And I'll let somebody else go next while I wait for the governor. Yes, I believe this is a question for Commissioner Pichett on your wrong forward side. The progress to go shows that the state is currently at forty seven point nine percent with one plus dose. But the state's vaccine dashboard has had its around in over 50 percent for a few days. Can you explain that discrepancy? Yeah, for sure, of course. So the difference is really what you're comparing it to. So the dashboard on the state's website often is comparing to those that are eligible, the eligible population, which is higher because you're taking out those under 16 years old. What we were looking at here and what the goals set out to do is measure it against the entire population. So we want to get coverage, you know, in the near term at 50 percent of the entire population, not just those that are eligible and then get up close to 70 percent of the entire population when we get into the summer. So those are important marks, we think, when we're looking at other countries and what has happened when they've reached those points on their case counts. So that's why we're looking at the full population on that on that slide. OK, thank you. Tim McQuiston from Office Magazine. Commissioner Levine, I had a few questions about herd immunity. I know this is kind of a curious subject, but people were asking if you if you put the number of people who vaccinated, plus the people who are unvaccinated, but have had COVID, what what does that what number are we looking for for herd immunity? And you know, it seems to me that there's probably a lot of overlap in those populations, too. But I've got that question. I'll ask it to you. What what's the herd immunity looking like and and how do you put those two things together? Good question. So it's it's amazing that it's already closing in on the end of April and you will not see a public health figure or a member of the president's team or anyone actually say a specific number at this point. It's still always a range and the range has been as low as 60 or 65 percent and as high as 85 to 90 percent. So I think most people are in the 75 to 85 percent range. It's kind of where it settled out. A lot of it is because this is such a novel virus and it's hard to just use a lot of past experience to come up with the magic number for a specific pathogen. But that's where the range is in Vermont. Unfortunately but really fortunately we don't have a large population with natural as it's called immunity or immunity produced by having gotten the infection. Maybe five percent at the worst but maybe less than five percent based on some of our seroprevalence data. So most of what we get for immunity is going to be from getting vaccinated. And so it really does require the kind of very enthusiastic response that the survey data shows Vermonters are having leading the nation with the amount of acceptance of the vaccine and desire to get it. And it's going to bring us to that certainly 80 85 percent range if everything went really well. So that's where we're sort of settling out. The other part of that is if you have had covid you should rely to some degree on that immunity you got from having had covid. But we do believe that the additional immune response you'll get from the vaccine is really important for you to take advantage of as well. So nationwide everyone who has even had a positive test for covid no matter how ill they got or didn't get. Is being recommended to get vaccinated. So I want to make sure that point gets across. Is there do you know yet how long those the natural if you've had covid how long those antibodies are sticking around. Is there enough evidence yet on what that's looking like. Yeah. So that's that's again under a lot of study right now. And we're getting more and more data as obviously we're having more and more time go by since this pandemic began so long ago. So six months is really the minimum. And people are very comfortable saying you will definitely be not definitely but you'll probably be comfortable with a six month window. They're not going that much further than that from immunity produced by having had the infection. When it comes to immunity from the vaccine itself. Obviously now we're starting to see the impact on people who were in the original studies earlier in 2020. So we're going to have some important information over these next few months actually to help guide us with regards to the duration of vaccine produced immunity. But most people are very optimistic about that stretching on well beyond six months hopefully to a year and then beyond that. But that's where we'll really be looking at this additional data because that obviously impacts whether we'll need and when we would need to have a booster if if that came about. So stay tuned with regard to that. I agree. Thank you very much. Hi I'm actually going to piggy back off of that question. We are hearing a lot about booster shots. I think both Pfizer and Moderna have indicated that there will be some coming down the line. So have you started working on how to continue the messaging about vaccinations you know maybe for six months or a year down the line. Like well the health department's website stay up for scheduling shots will some of this infrastructure we have to deliver a vaccine stay in place. Wow so parts of that I could say definitely yes. Clearly the messaging and the infrastructure doesn't go away. We have an immunization program. This is their day to day job three hundred sixty five days a year with regard to all vaccines not just this one. So that's going to remain without question with regard to the actual structure by which we administer vaccines. Obviously there'll be a big transition occurring sometime after our July 4th date so that the clinical community specifically the primary care community that traditionally delivers vaccines has more opportunity to do that. Some of that will depend on which vaccines and what their storage requirements are etc. And for any Vermonda who happens to be waiting and wanting to only get the vaccine from their own doctor and have that conversation with their doctor they're welcome to do that but it's not going to happen that quickly so I'd still encourage them to have the conversation but register for your vaccine at this point in time because that would be most advisable. Whether we would need to have large vaccination sites. At the time people were told to get a booster in the future. I'd say we haven't talked about that extensively at this time and we'll cross that bridge when when we come to it. I do want you to note Kat that the governor has just entered the room. So I'm happy to take a second question from you if you had one but if you wanted to reserve one for him wanted to hear his comments we could do that now. I'll let the governor deliver his comments but if you could come back to me after that that would be great. Thank you. Well good good morning still. Just got off the phone with other governors Dr. Fauci Dr. Walensky and other White House officials and here's what we heard. This week our state supply will be level it won't go up or go down but the pharmacies will see a slight increase from last week by about 800,000 doses across the country which will mean about 8000 doses for Vermont. Now remember this is Moderna in Pfizer only. No Johnson Johnson will be shipped this week. As you all know the FDA and CDC suspended Johnson Johnson last week. And we just heard again to reiterate the ACPI meeting is scheduled for Friday and they're hoping to have a decision on Johnson and Johnson with some restrictions of some sort shortly after that meeting adjourns that we'll have to wait and see no firm commitment but that's the speculation. They also said that J&J has continued to manufacture their vaccine on a limited basis not out of Baltimore but another facility. So when the FDA and CDC give the go ahead we should be able to receive almost immediately or that following week. So that's about all we heard. There were some questions limited questions from other governors in the call is still going on at this point. But but that's what I wanted to get for information to update all of you. As Deputy Secretary Samuelson had mentioned all Vermonters 16 and older are now eligible for vaccinations and we've already seen about 40,000 of them sign up through the entire state system, not including the federal pharmacies. I believe that may be a combination. But that's what I understand. This is encouraging because it's so important to sign up and don't be discouraged if you can't find an appointment this week or next. We're still adding appointments as are the pharmacies. So you should lock one in now if you can and you can always change it and move up. But if you do just make sure that you cancel your older appointment. Also, depending on what happens on Friday with Johnson Johnson, we could expand appointments even further if that pause is lifted in order to get shots and arms quicker. Remember, we're in a race against the variants and the vaccine is our ticket to the front. Once you're vaccinated, the risk to you is very low and you can feel safe to do more of the things we've missed over the last 12 months. When we rolled out our Vermont forward plan, our roadmap to safely and strategically ease restrictions over the next two and a half months. We tied it all to vaccination rates. Whether we meet them and whether we're able to move forward depends on each and every one of us to do our part and sign up. So please for yourself, for your friends and for your family, make your appointment. Sign up so we can all have a more normal summer to enjoy. With that, we'll move back to questions. I think we're still with cat. Yep, we'll go back to you now. Give the order that we'll start from the start from. Yeah, actually, this question might end up being productive of being any timeframe for how long someone should wait after they have COVID before they get vaccinated. I'm thinking of the young people who might have had COVID recently and just became eligible for a shot. So there's not an urgency to get the vaccine. If you've just had COVID. What we generally tell people is once you've totally become well and you've gone through that time period before we would have you go back to work or back to school or wherever setting you came from. You could get vaccinated thereafter, but you could also wait somewhere between then and 90 days later and still comfortably do that. So you have a little bit of the luxury of time without waiting too long. Got it. One last question about the data and as it relates to young people and their cases going down. Do you believe this is a behavior change only? I don't think so, to be honest. I think just like we couldn't describe the cases going up with a uniform theory that was one reason probably can't describe the cases coming down with a uniform theory. We're seeing the region come down, not just the state and there's obviously variants that are of concern that we know are affecting a lot of people. Maybe they've sort of run their course at this point in time and burned out a little bit. It's hard to tell. There's not a lot of new things that have been done other than telling people to buckle down and do everything they've been doing. So that's why I don't believe it can just be that factor. We have had some nice weather and opportunities to get outside. So in the way that that affects behavior, that certainly has played a role, I would think as well, because less time congregating indoors, less opportunity to spread the virus. Thank you. Based on those who messaged me that they had their questions for the governor, just so everyone knows, before we get back to the list and order that I sent around this morning, I'm going to go to Calvin, then Mike Donoghue, then Greg Lamero, then Lisa Loomis, then Han-Wallis Down, and then back to the order we've been in. So Calvin. Thanks, Governor. In the call with the White House, was there any indication of the Canadian border opening up or any movement on that front? No, nothing on the border at this point in time. Obviously, we watch that with interest. And I don't think it's a good sign when Ontario and Quebec have closed the border amongst the two of them. So I'm not, I'm not sensing that that's going to be any time soon. Certainly not this month. You know, I guess kind of looking at from an economic standpoint, I mean, you know, what are you forecasting or do you have any concern maybe about potential revenue this this summer with the border being closed? Yeah, I mean, we saw the dramatic effect that had on our economy. You know, we enjoy a good amount of tourism from Quebec in particular and Canada in general. And we saw that last summer, as well as this this winter. So it is a concern, but but at the same time, it was interesting because we saw a lot of people, a lot of Vermonters and those from the region coming into Vermont to explore. And so we will enjoy both. And I'm hopeful that once Canada Quebec in particular catches up to where we are, that the border will be opened back up there behind us in terms of their vaccine strategy. Thank you. Mike Donahue, the islander. Thank you, Governor, we continue to get a lot of questions, emails about the legislature failure to fully exempt military benefits for retired personnel. I know you had a statement earlier this week and apparently I just learned that Vermont is one of three states, only three not to fully exempt benefits. See, California is one of those. I'm not sure many Vermonters would probably agree that that's the state we want to be following. But anyway, I'm just wondering any updated thoughts. And when one couple in particular wrote, you have a sense of due to the lack of appreciation of military service by many legislators, because they probably never served and don't understand what sacrifice is made. Yeah, as you know, Mike, I've been promoting this for the last four years now. And we're one of seven states that has not taken any action. And I think you're right, I've heard the same number one of three who hasn't fully taken advantage of this situation. So I think, you know, I think it's, it's the right thing to do on a number of different levels, just from a sense of those who serve our country willing to go into battle, run towards the danger instead of running away from it, trying to protect our freedom and our democracy and their way of life. So I think on that level alone, it's enough to do something. As well, we've talked a lot about our demographic issue. In fact, when we had our rating agency calls last week, they continue to be concerned. One of the two issues one are unfunded liabilities continues to be an issue. Secondly, our demographics, we need more people coming into the state. We don't need reasons for them not to stay here or to come here. So this is a big issue for us. And we need to bolster the workforce. And we've seen where those in the military retire at a fairly young age, sometimes in their 40s, and looking for a second career wanting to take their skills they learned in the military and continue in a place that's safe and healthy. And that's Vermont, but they want some place as well that doesn't tax their benefits because they have 43 other options. So again, I am asking the legislature to reconsider. I don't think that 10,000, the first 10,000 is enough. And and I realize the the Senate is hesitant to do anything at all. So I'm concerned. I still would hope that they would reconsider because we need them again for a multitude of reasons, but we need them to either come to Vermont or stay in Vermont. But do you have a as a couple wrote, you have a sense it might be a lack of appreciation by many legislators because they never serve and they don't understand what it's like. And and I never serve. So I'm not I don't fully understand it, but I appreciate it. But these legislators, a lot of them appears they've never served and maybe their own parents have never served. So there's a couple is wondering is there's a failure to grasp what the situation is? Yeah, I don't know, Mike, it's probably a better question for them individually. I never served either. But my dad certainly did. And I have many friends who did. I have a lot of many people I admire who did. And so I have a deep appreciation again for our veterans. And so I think it's the least we can do. And I think that again, if we were the only state for the only state to to move forward with this, I'd still think was the right thing to do. But you know, we're one of a small minority of states that does not give this exemption. And it puts us a real disadvantage from my perspective. Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Greg, the county carrier. Good afternoon, Governor. Uh, following up on my question there. Um, you put out a commentary with Lieutenant Governor Gray on this matter. I'm wondering who reached out to who to set up that commentary. That was pretty much staff to staff. I know the Lieutenant Governor during the campaign had talked about this. So I was encouraged when I heard that because as you know, I've been I've been talking about this for a number of years. So to have some reinforcements, so to speak, was was good news. And so our staff had been talking about something we could do together. And this was a common common interest and a common appreciation for veterans. So it was just a combination of the staff getting together and coming to the conclusion that this would be a good thing to do. This was been the works for a number of weeks now. But you don't know who staff reached out to first? No, we talk our staff talks back and forth a lot about different issues. Um, I myself speak to the Lieutenant Governor every other week on a regular basis. So it just came up in one of those conversations and we decided to explore it and came up with, um, an editorial, an opinion piece that that we both could agree with, and we both added did some editing back and forth. Thank you for the station on that. Moving on. As you know, Governor High School sports started over the weekend. Um, I've noticed out on the field, many spectators are still required to wear masks, even though they're, you know, social distancing outside, you know, we're hearing that almost 50% of the population is vaccinated. If people are really social distancing outside vaccinated, is it really needed to be wearing a mask or can we start to enjoy Vermont fresh air again? Yeah, you know, I think we will probably be watching this situation over the next few weeks. Um, and I personally believe getting outside and the more people vaccinated, the better we'll get to a point where possibly outdoors, we might be able to lift the mass mandate. It's not right now. But it may be soon. We'll have those conversations over the next few weeks. Thank you, Governor, and we'll talk again on Friday. Lisa Lewis, reporter. Good afternoon. I want to follow up on like Donahue's question about the joint press release with Bruce Montenegro, Governor Mollie Gray calling for the elimination of the tax on military retirement income. Well, Remotnia is one of seven states to tax military retirement income. It is also one of 13 states to tax the social security benefits. Will you be calling for and would you support eliminating state taxation of social security benefits? Sure. Yeah, I mean, as you, as well as you remember, probably that back from day one, back four, five years ago, I started talking about the elimination of tax on social security. I felt the same way about that that I do about the tax on veterans pensions. And we were able to accomplish this with the legislature, not the full exemption, as I'd called for, but for those who have low and moderate income and we were able to come again to an agreement. It was a step forward. So we at least weren't the one of the few states that continued to tax fully. And we did give a break to those with low and moderate income. So if they'd like to go further, I would be inclined to support that as I'd advocated for that from the beginning. Great. Thank you very much. Also, Alan, seven days. Hi there. Thanks for taking my question. First, I wanted to ask a little bit more about the vaccine hesitancy. I know that the state has sort of targeted as a county with various education campaigns or you guys said you were going to. I don't know if they have started and I'm wondering, have you been able to identify what works and what doesn't? Yeah, I think that's really just beginning and I think we're going to be continuing to do everything we can to advocate and find different approaches. I don't think there's one single approach that's going to work. It's like all the above. And I think as well, I'm bringing the Johnson Johnson back on board. I it's unfortunate. I know it depends on we talked about this a little bit on the call with the White House. Their feeling is that this gives more confidence this this period, this pause of Johnson Johnson for the right reasons has given will eventually give more confidence to the the vaccination process and the vaccines themselves. I'm I'm in the other camp. I feel as though this might galvanize those who were hesitant before and we don't we don't need to convince those who had bought into the vaccine the vaccines themselves. And I believe that this is going to hurt the longer it goes. So that's why I'm hopeful on the Friday that they will be moving forward and lifting this pause if they have to come up with some restrictions as a result. Fine. But the longer it goes, I think the more galvanized people are in terms of the hesitancy with vaccinations in general. Dr. Levine, you want to add to that? The thing I would add would be first of all to focus on Essex County. Our strategies are not as much against vaccine hesitancy as they are in facilitating vaccine access. And so most of the strategies are really to do just that with mobile delivery of vaccine and with the hospital in Colbert, the upper Connecticut Valley Hospital that traditionally already serves a portion of Essex County residents and they rely on it for health care. So it's only natural that they could utilize it to get vaccine. And that's already begun. So that's that part. But with regard to hesitancy as a general topic, it's really important, first of all, to make sure that people hear from what they regard to be reliable sources. And whether those reliable sources are people like the governor and myself who they see all the time and apparently trust based on survey data, or whether it's people in their own peer group, people in their own community, people in their own work site for that matter, who they value their word and they're trusted and can have that conversation with them. Even more importantly is to really explore where the hesitancy comes from because it's different for different people and just getting an understanding of the concerns, the potential questions, the issues that are preventing someone from fully embracing vaccination just to hear that out and allow a conversation about it is really critical as well. And then to really engage people in understanding what benefits vaccine may have for them so they can begin to do that risk benefit analysis and find out if truly the benefits far outweigh any of the risks that they had been concerned about. So a lot of different strategies, some of them educational on a large scale, but most of them actually educational and conversational on a very individual scale because there are so many different reasons that people would have for not wanting to be vaccinated. That actually is kind of leads me to my next question, which was thank you. Back when mask wearing was somewhat more new to us. Governor Scott and Dr. Levine, you had some pretty clear guidance regarding whether or not we should walk up to people in stores and say, hey, put on your mask. You said people shouldn't. They should really, you know, stay in their own lane and wear their mask. And I'm sure that cut down on the number of confrontations. And now obviously we can't tell who's been vaccinated and who isn't. But I'm still wondering about this summer, since there is still going to be a certain proportion of people who have chosen not to be vaccinated. How do you foresee businesses and individuals handling these encounters with potential customers or others who aren't vaccinated? Do you think there'll be businesses who are just saying you can't come in unless you are? And how should the public handle those questions? Yeah, so I think from the standpoint of the business community that there's been a fair amount of flexibility allowed them in terms of what decisions they might make about vaccination of their customer base or for an event coming into an event, things of that sort, that they would have freedom to do that. The the issue of, you know, the public really not understanding who is and who isn't vaccinated is going to continue. No question about it, not as easy to figure out as if you're wearing a mask or not. But at the same time, that's going to be true, not just within the borders of Vermont, but anywhere you choose to go in the world and certainly in the country. So I think again, we put a lot of emphasis through the pandemic on individual decision making, individuals being able to make their own judgment calls and sort of take care of themselves by understanding the best guidance and understanding exactly what situations they may or may not want to insert themselves in. So I would think that that would still continue. Governor, did you have anything to add? I would only add that the Vermont Forward Plan lays out our strategy over the next couple months here. And by the 4th of July, we hope to lift everything. So there won't be a mass mandate at that point in time. As I answered earlier, I also believe that sometime between now and then that we may be lifting the mass mandate for those outside because we know that the spread is more inside than outside in confined spaces. So as we transition to having no mandates, there may be some steps along the way that would make some sense to people. So if they are outside, let's say, and they're not in close contact enjoying the outdoors, no mass, they might see the reasoning behind it when you go inside in a close proximity to each other. So we'll discuss that further. Nothing has been confirmed on that, but we'll have those conversations because I know that other governors are having those conversations as well. All right. All right. Well, thank you. All right. Pete Hirschfeld, DPI. Thank you. Sorry for the delay. I was just unmuting. I'll direct this question to Dr. Levine, those commissioner Peechak has been modeling insights. I'd love to hear those as well. Dr. Levine, you're projecting very high vaccination rates in Vermont, but I've been reading a lot of reporting in other states where accepting rate rates are projected to be much lower than they are here. And I'm wondering to what extent low vaccination rates outside Vermont is going to undermine the benefit of comparatively high rates here? That's a really good question. So part of that question hinges on something we talked about earlier, which is what is the definition of community immunity and to what level do we need to get, which we're going to find out obviously over a period of time. There's also going to be, as we know, because it's being talked about all over, not by the state, but by more the private community, emphasis on who feels that mandating a vaccine for their work site or for their educational site, like a college or university, might matter as well. So that will impact vaccination rates across the country as well, depending on what kind of decisions are made. And we know that these vaccines are going to be receiving true approval, not just emergency use authorization. You know, pretty close future is my prediction. So that will make for lots of conversation about that. You know, we've always been data driven and science driven. And we're going to obviously have to continue to look at a map and understand what vaccination rates are at different places, but more importantly, understand what that impact is in those places with regards to how they're dealing with the pandemic and with the virus itself. And I would think that that would go into our decision making, as we would begin to decide on any other mitigation measures we could use if we were very concerned about people bringing in virus to Vermont. But at the same time, I can't project that that is going to be as big an issue as it might be because I do think we're going to see a period of time where there is more virus suppression based on the vaccination rates no matter what they are across the country and on the mitigation measures that are put in place at this point in time anyways. The reality is what we do within the borders of Vermont are one thing, but virus is no, no borders. So we're going to have to just keep a close eye on what that data is and what that impact might be upon our state. I wouldn't want to project that there's going to need to be further attention. As you know, we're moving in a direction closer to the region with the current policies we have with regards to testing when people have left the state or are coming into the state. And we'll make decisions based on data again as to what we do with those and if they can be further relaxed as we would hope and plan or if there are other things going on because of vaccination rates varying in the region or around the country that would concern us. So a little hard to give you the most specific answer yet except to say that we should remain science and data driven throughout. So can I take your answer to... Oh. I was going to let Commissioner Pichek add his part since you invited him. Yeah, great. Thank you. Thanks, Peter. Just wanted to mention as you I think are well aware that the Northeast in general has really high vaccination uptake at this point. And you know, Vermont is leading the country in many different ways on the amount of vaccine uptake that we've received. But so are many of the New England and Northeast states. So from our immediate travel region, you know, the whole area should be pretty well protected from the vaccine. When you look at other parts of the country or the other parts of the world, you know, certainly you worry about new variants coming about for those parts of the world that are unprotected from the vaccine or have no vaccine protection at all. Don't you worry about that in the United States, too, if there are states that don't have high uptake rates as well. The World Health Organization announced yesterday that this was the highest weekly total globally of new cases. So that is something that you have to sort of be, I think, on your radar screen. But generally, because we're so well protected, people coming here from the Northeast or people coming from other parts of the country of the world, you know, Vermonters should have pretty strong protection. So herd immunity can be a region-specific phenomenon? Yeah, I mean, I think in, you know, I think maybe I think the TBD on herd immunity level and regional versus, you know, countrywide versus statewide, even countywide. I think we're looking at all of that. But you would expect to see different states, different counties, different regions having different case impacts based on their vaccine uptake. And because we're going to be so, we anticipate being so high here in Vermont when all is said and done, we just think we'll have, we'll be one of the most vaccinated states and one of the safest. Sorry to take up so much time. And thank you both. The Nates, local 22, local 44. Yeah, I had a question about vaccination, vaccination rates. I was looking at the most recent numbers, obviously really strong turnout, 65 plus. And then when you go from 16 to 40, there's a good chance those people may still be waiting for their first dose. My question was for that middle age range. Is there any indication of how many of these people are still signing up on a regular basis? How many of them might be waiting for their first dose and sort of where that population stands? Yeah, I believe that those populations are continuing to grow as we've seen in some of the modeling that we've been given. So we look forward to them continuing to sign up. Jenny, do you have anything to add to that? OK, Mike, anything you want to add to? We're just we're seeing it build almost on a weekly basis throughout almost all the age populations. And as people become, I guess, more confident as well as maybe the timing aspect. And I'm very, very pleased with the turnout of the 16 and over at this point in time. This is especially with the 16 16 to 18 year olds on the on the first day. I think there was almost there was over 10,000 in the first day. So that was that was a good sign. And we've just seen it build since. So we're on track to having a high uptake here in Vermont, maybe one of the best in the country. Thank you. I'll have Mr. P check give you more data. Just wanted to mention that when you look at last week to this week, we didn't put this in the presentation, but, you know, for the 50 year olds, they're still increasing, you know, 17 percent over last week in terms of their individuals have started or completed vaccination. The 40 year olds are, you know, 19 percent increase from last week. Those in their thirties, you know, 35 or 25 percent increase. So even those middle age groups are seeing week over week a pretty good increase in terms of the number of people that have started or completed vaccination. So as the governor said, I mean, you know, we're really sort of pretty optimistic about what that will mean at the end of the day. Thank you. Cameron, St. Albans messenger. Hi, yeah, I had a question for Secretary French, just broadly, now we're moving more toward in-person and cases numbers are going down. What is public education going to look like sort of post pandemic? Are there any changes made during the pandemic that were initially in the interest of safety, such as remote learning that you see sticking around in some form or other? Yeah, it's a great question. I think, you know, that's perhaps one of the great, great challenges in front of us. You know, certainly, and I think appropriately, 90 percent at least of our energies is just on managing the system as we know it now in the context of this unprecedented pandemic. But I think to be as strategic as possible, we should be thinking about opportunities and takeaways from this experience. And I think the experience of technology in particular, I know it's been imperfect to say the least in the last year, but in many ways it's advanced the use of technology in schools in a way that was there before. So particularly as a rural state, I think, you know, we need to look at technology in terms of how we can expand offerings for students all across the state, particularly in some of our smaller high schools. And I think, you know, just the connectivity tools of bringing students together and sharing experiences and so forth are things that we really should look at. But I think that remains to be seen, you know, certainly our focus right now is getting through us to school year into the summer, but we'll be looking for those opportunities going forward and I'm hopeful that, you know, with our sort of history of innovation and education that we'll be able to focus in on those pretty easily. All right, great, thank you. Yeah, Cameron, I think it is imperative that we consider all the lessons learned from the pandemic. And I think that we can utilize some of what we learned to enhance our education system. Think about like foreign languages. Not every school can have an individual instructor for a limited amount of students, but if you had some remote learning opportunities, and I'm talking about them coming into the classroom, but from there, if you had three or four in a small school that were interested in learning a foreign language and there was another school that was offering that, maybe you could learn together. So this is the type of approach that I see in the future that will just bolster our education system. Great, thank you both. Andrew, Caledonia in record. Yes, thank you, good afternoon. This one probably for Commissioner PCAC. In your presentation, you included a slide that shows vaccine hesitancy data sourced from the CDC and the HHS. The data actually provides county level statistics that shows a modestly higher hesitancy in the kingdom than the rest of the state. Do you agree that there may be higher hesitancy in the kingdom, and given that our three counties now have the lowest vaccination rates, all three have slips that they now have for one, two, and three lowest rates? Are these regional differences big enough to make a difference in the end in terms of case outcomes? Yeah, no, it's a great question. And just on the methodology for the county development, they did take that pulse survey that we reference every so often and then applied sort of a demographic view on the counties, what were their political considerations, what was the demographic profile, and then they sort of made a final determination based on those elements. So I think the kingdom probably, based on more of the political side, got ranked a little bit more hesitant than some other counties in Vermont due to just in terms of its voting history. So I think that explains the reason for it, the methodological reason for it. Will it matter at the end of the day? I mean, we certainly want vaccine uptake to be as high as possible across the entire state, but with the coverage that we are anticipating seeing in most parts of the state, even if it's a little bit lower in some counties, hopefully it won't make that much of a difference, particularly when we get our cases to a really low level. And again, Vermont won't be an island here, the whole Northeast is anticipated to have really high uptake. So I think it is a real, I think it's real that concern about hesitancy being greater in the kingdom, that's for sure. Will it matter at the end of the day? I think to be determined, but because of the high uptake that we anticipate getting across the state and even in the Northeast kingdom as well, I mean, there's other places in the region or in the country that have a much higher degree of hesitancy than what we're seeing, even in our most hesitant counties here in Vermont. So we are still confident that we'll get really good protection. Okay, thank you. And for Governor Scott, in your letter to the legislature this weekend on age 315, you stated you wanted the ARPA money to be vested in a transparent way. I'm curious what that means to you in terms of transparency and where is your administration in further developing the dashboard for the CARES Act money? I know that was launched several months ago, but it still seems to be in phase one and lacking granular detail about recipients or geographic distribution. Yeah, that was one of the issues I had with age 315 that they had actually appropriated about 60 million of ARPA money into different initiatives. And it wasn't the initiatives in some respect, it was just the lack of or seeing that this was being used in a scattered type approach amongst different bills. Very hard to track. We had trouble tracking it. I'm sure legislators had trouble tracking it. I just wanna see it confined to one bill. If it's one bill, a separate bill, or whether it's the separate section in the appropriations bill, that everything comes together somewhere so that we can account for this once in a lifetime opportunity that we have about a billion dollars of money that is really monumental and could be used to be very transformative for our state. I'd like us to look back in 20 years and say we made a difference. We invested in housing back in 2021, and that was a turning point for this state. Or we invested money for climate change, 200 million for climate change in 2021. And that was the start of something much bigger. And for water and sewer and storm water, I mean, all these issues, broadband, I mean, who doesn't want broadband? But having it in an area so we can just keep track of it so it isn't spent for programmatic needs because the other 1.7 billion of this 2.7 billion dollar package is all going to different sectors that is pre-prescribed. The billion is more flexible for us and we should invest this wisely. So that's why I'd like to see it more transparent so that we can all follow it. So Vermonters can follow it and see where we spent it because we're not gonna get this opportunity again. In terms of the CARES Act funding, I don't have the answer to that. And I can have someone follow up with you on that, Andrew. I just don't have that information. Governor? Oh wait, maybe Suzanne has that. Yes, I do have an answer, it's a very timely question. The next iteration or the next dive that we've taken into the data for the dashboard is just about ready to go. We were just talking about it yesterday on my team and we are going to be releasing that in the next couple of days and we'll put out a press release or a notice so that you'll be able to take a look at it. Okay, look forward to that. And if I may, Governor, the ARCA money, another billion dollars to be distributed around the state. So far in terms of vaccination, the state's made a concerted effort to distribute vaccines on an equitable basis across the Cadets and population. Do you have the same hope and intent that the ARCA money will be distributed equitably across the geographic regions of the state or do you see it being concentrated in certain areas? It's a great question, Andrew. And if I had my druthers, it wouldn't be as equitable. I think I would rather have it go to the rural parts of the states, part of the state that are typically ignored, that need the most help. We talk about this a lot. I've talked about this a lot. The rural areas of the state have been shortchanged and not the fault of state government in some respects but again, with this money, we'll be able to transform some of the communities, some of the communities and the rural parts of the states that have been impacted greatly over the last couple of decades, multiple decades. So we can make a difference here and we can make them more attractive. We can help their local economies. And I think that again, it'll be from my perspective equitable but I would rather, if we have to err on the side of concentration, it would be outside of the Northwest quarter of our state. Thank you for your time. Avery, WCAX. Dr. Levine, have you heard me think further on the AstraZeneca vaccine in the US and how would that potentially impact vaccine rollout not just during the pandemic but after and people need maybe boosters or more vaccines? Yeah, I've actually heard on the negative side that they weren't actually pushing for getting EUA in the United States at this time, dealing with all the other fallout they've been having from other parts of the world. So that's as much as I know at this point in time. So it's certainly not gonna have any immediate impact on any of our vaccination planning for the next couple of months from what I can see. Thank you. AT Digger. I spoke questions about those jobs in a Johnson vaccine and its effect on the state tree opening plans. I'm trying to understand like how the loss of the J&J vaccine will not affect the state tree opening plans. Like when you were calculating these estimated percentages, did you include the vaccine in like your projections on how many doses you would get or what's just like based on Pfizer and Moderna all along? Yeah, we were including Johnson and Johnson but as well, it all depends on how much we received an increase in the allocation of Moderna and Pfizer for instance this week. And again, it's a small increase but 800,000 more doses. We think we'll be able to get by but admittedly it's going to be a bit of a struggle if we don't see the Johnson and Johnson reinstituted. I believe firmly that it will based on the call I had today with the White House and other governors. It sounded to me as though there's some confidence that they'll take action this Friday. So that will help but again because of the increase the allocation of Moderna and Pfizer, it's filled some of the gap. But whether it's going to be enough to the very end it depends on them, it depends on the federal government in increasing those supplies which they feel they said over the next two to three weeks not to expect a whole lot of an increase but it will not go down. And then they continue to forecast that there'd be substantial increases of Moderna and Pfizer over the next two months. So we didn't build all of that in is what I'm trying to say, Erin. Okay, yeah, so when I look at the, kind of maybe this is a question for P.Jack by the way, the Vermont forward chart in the modeling report that predicts the ranges for May 1st and June 1st. What are the assumptions in that chart about the increased in doses of Moderna happen? Like are those numbers based on the assumption that there will be an increase in doses? I will either refer to Commissioner P.Jack or Deputy Secretary Samuelson. Thanks Erin. So that Vermont forward progress to goal chart is really showing the actual data to date in terms of one plus doses and then the goals that were laid out in the Vermont forward plan. So there's no projections in on that slide. However, what I will say is we have looked at what the projections are and what our assumptions are and our assumption last week was that we would get basically the same amount of doses that the same amount of administration would occur over time so that Johnson and Johnson came offline but Pfizer and Moderna filled that gap and let's assume that that stayed the same over the next five to 10 weeks. And even under that scenario, we do hit the targets. It's a little bit closer than we'd want on the May 1st but as you can see, we're 10 days away from May 1st and we're pretty much comfortable in that zone there in terms of reaching the goal. So we really were making a pretty conservative assumption based on the amount of doses that were being administered separate from the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. Okay, thanks for clarifying. Yes, Lizette. I think what I would also add is is that those original assumptions were based on really conservative, on the most conservative numbers coming out of the White House in terms of projecting what our uptake of vaccinations would be. At the point that we made them, there was limited information about the Johnson and Johnson vaccine coming out. We've seen an increase in the federal pharmacy program and an increase in the FQ, the federally qualified health centers receiving vaccine that we didn't anticipate in the original numbers that we had. I'm confident we'll hit those targets. Thank you. As well, Deputy Secretary Samuelson, the Department of Defense has been a bit of a partner, although we don't know exactly who they're administering all of the vaccinations to, but between the National Guard and the VA, there's a sector there that has been and their caregivers as well as family members. So all of that is helping with the situation we find ourselves in. All right. Okay, thank you. Tom Davis, Compass Vermont. Thanks, Jason. Governor, with this so-called cloud tax being passed by the House, looking at the language of that, and I've heard a few people be concerned that it could open itself up enough to be taxing people if they're using Spotify or Netflix or pretty much any delivery service that comes into the home via the internet. Do you have some thoughts on that? I'm opposed to taxing this cloud tax. I have been, since I was in the Senate, I voted against it when I was in the Senate and I continue to be opposed to it. It would be nice for us here in Vermont to be known as a state that doesn't tax the cloud, even if other states are doing it. Maybe that would be a bit of a competitive advantage for us. So I'm continuing to disagree with the House on that provision and as I understand it, the Senate doesn't have an appetite for it either. Okay, thank you. One other question when it comes to the taxing of the any forgiven PPP loans. Have you discussed with anybody the opportunity to see whether or not Vermont can formally reach back and tax something that the State Department at one point while following federal guidelines that really didn't make any mention of the fact that they thought they should be taxing it later on? Well, again, I'm not sure if I get the whole context of your question, but again in my letter back to the legislature on H315, I am opposed to taxing PPPs. I believe Congress had that right. They didn't anticipate taxing this emergency provision for businesses. I don't think businesses knew that they were going to be taxed. So I think it's a dangerous precedent in some respects. So happy that they went and clarified that for 2020 and look forward to them clarifying that in 2021. It's a bit unclear at this point, but they have the ability to say clearly that they are not going to be taxing these emergency grants and loans to these businesses that desperately needed them over the last two years during this once in a century pandemic. So they have the ability to clarify that and I again look forward to them doing that. I spoke to a CPA who was opposed to this tax who said that he'd already received no education from the Vermont Department of Tax. They're going forward with it even though there's a mixed message from the legislature. Have you heard about that? Well, it doesn't affect the last year. So we have to go by whatever the law is obviously, but it's unclear as to whether this will be included in 2021. But I can clarify that with the tax department if you'd like, maybe or Secretary Young, do you have any thoughts on this? Governor, I believe the tax department intends to apply the exemption that was in H315. And as you noted, the issue is for EPP loans that are forgiven with current tax year where the filing will occur in the spring of 2022. But I'm happy to talk offline and make sure I'm understanding the question of what notice went out by the tax department. Tom, are you talking about for their courtesies maybe in the future? It could be. I have to double check it. The CPI spoke to didn't specifically say he is just, even though he thought there were some things were still under, I didn't think he'd received a memo, but I can find out more about that. Yeah, we'll follow up with you as well. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Tom. Joe, the bargain chronicle. Thank you. I believe this is probably for Dr. Levine. Currently, as I understand it, the Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson and Johnson vaccines have been approved for emergency use. And what will it take for them to be simply approved vaccines? Clearly, there have been a lot of doses administered over the past several months. A lot of data, I am assuming, has been gathered. What is the process for formal or approval of the vaccines and is this something that the companies have to ask for or would the CDC or the FDA be doing this as part of the normal course of business? Yeah, so the reality is that the only further determining factor is gonna be duration of time that's gone by to make sure that full evaluation of any unanticipated adverse effects is taken into account. And that's why I do believe within the month of May, probably, June at the latest, I would think, you're going to start seeing for the Pfizer and Moderna, which were the earliest ones, the movement towards approval. I'm not actually sure if one party needs to be first asking for it versus the FDA just saying it's time for us to do that. I believe on their regular schedule, they take into account the amount of time that they wanna see for the data to be more firm. So I would suspect it will be around May, which will certainly be looking at data from all of the millions of doses that have been administered around the country, but as importantly will be coming up on a significant amount of time since the people enrolled in the original study have been followed up. So it doesn't really matter if the company is knocking at the door or the FDA is doing it on their own because it's part of, I believe, their regular schedule of how they evaluate these. Thank you very much. Vermont State House. This is a question, I suppose, for Commissioner Levine. How do you, based on the CDC National and Vermont Vaccine Breakthrough Figures that you shared earlier, I did some number crunching and how do you explain why Vermont's Vaccine Breakthrough Rate, even though very low, is about 10 times higher than the national average? And what, if anything, can be done about this? I would just remind everyone that we test a lot here in Vermont. I think that might have something to do with it. We're like fifth in the nation and approaching maybe fourth in the nation in terms of per capita testing. Yeah, one of the cautions I gave when I gave my opening comments had to do with the fact that there's going to be variable reporting around the country and it's voluntary reporting. So we may not be seeing the full picture from other states. So I wouldn't want us to make it sound like somehow Vermonters have more trouble mounting an immune response to a vaccine or some other way the data could be interpreted. Testing is a really big part of it. And one slide we haven't shown you and maybe we could show at a later date is not just the fact that Vermont's in the top five states, often one or two, but the incredible disparity between the top five or 10 states and the bottom five or 10 states on a per capita testing. It's not subtle, it's dramatic. So I just want you to take that into account as we look at this data. We also have a really rich tradition of reporting in our vaccine systems, our immunization registry program, our immunization program in general is very tightly tied in with our practice community in the state. And there's a real rich history of being able to have a lot of data from that program provided to us. So my caution here is just don't jump to premature conclusions because when we're dealing with a national figure that's 0.007%, I wouldn't want to make too much of what we come up with in Vermont. And I can easily see a few cases making a big difference compared to the national picture. Noted, thank you, good explanation. Also I previously heard that the herd immunity, the magic number is about 70%. Today you're talking 75% to 80% and seems the bar has migrated upwards. So why is that? The bar has not migrated upwards. In fact, my main point is that you won't find a number and you won't find a consensus on the number amongst the public health community, epidemiology community, infectious disease and virology community. It's really a broader range. 70% seems to me a little bit setting the bar a little too low. 90% seems setting it a little too high. So 75 to 85 is where I kind of settled in but I'm hopeful 70% would be great so that parts of the country that don't really have the same vaccine uptake we have have a chance to do as well. But I don't think you should hang your hat on a number, hang your hat on the range. And if you want to start the range at 70 going up to 85%, that's fine because nobody's going to be able to give you a firm argument against it or for it at this point. Thank you. How many of us are reported? Can I just go back just to the vaccines and the breakthroughs? Keep in mind we have three vaccines. 95%, efficacy 90%, 75%. That means there's still a chance, right? So there's five, 10, 25% chance you still could transmit or contract the virus. But what we've done, what all of them have going for them is the incredible reduction in the opportunity to be hospitalized or die from the virus. So that's what we've been doing since day one is trying to reduce hospitalizations and deaths and that's what these vaccines have proven to do. So we just want to keep that in mind as well. Okay, thank you. Erin, this is our reporter. Yeah, hi, thank you. My question is for Commissioner Shirling and the governor regarding the recent report about building and expanding Vermont's prisons that was presented to the legislature and that the ACLU and some other groups have kind of spoke out against and objected to the creation of more beds or the expansion of the Vermont prison system. So I was just curious about when the governor supports that idea or whether the Department of Public Safety is specifically looking to expand the prison system? Well, first of all, from my perspective, something we've talked about for a number of years now, the upgrading of existing facilities. We came out with a campus type approach a number of two or three years ago that was not well received from the legislature. I hear at this point in time that they're considering maybe a replacement of the women's facility, but I still believe we have some upgrades needed to the other pieces of the system. The numbers are something that we can continue to talk about, right? Either down size, up size, but I think I hope we would all agree that we're going to still need a modern facility to for the offender population because I don't think that goes away. But the size is something that we can continue to debate and discuss, but I still believe that we need to modernize the prison system. I don't know if this is for, whether this is for Secretary Young or for Commissioner Scherling or others, but I'll invite anyone to weigh in at this point. Good afternoon. Since I was named in the question, Governor Mike Scherling from Public Safety, the corrections operations actually fall in the HTC Human Services and Corrections is separate from Public Safety. By extension, we're supportive of their efforts to modernize facilities, but we don't have a specific needs on the part of Department of Public Safety that relates to those operations. And thank you, Governor. This is Secretary Young. The department of buildings and general services within the agency, the administration, is acting in a support role in terms of pulling together the pieces of the report that the legislature asked for. The lead department is the Department of Corrections and Commissioner Jim Baker. And as the governor said previously, the modernization of the facilities is the focus of the efforts to build new facilities. The number of spaces is not something that we are looking to actually increase, but to bring our facilities into a place where they would provide the best services to the individuals that we are serving in our correctional settings and facilities. So again, the modernization is really important, particularly of our women's prison in the Chittenden County, and then over time for the other facilities that we have across the state. Yeah, can I get a clarification on who spoke last there? That was Deputy Secretary Samuelson. Great, okay, thank you for that question. Michael, BC Digger. Hi, one more question for the governor on the use of ARPA money. Is your letter to lawmakers that we can do criticize them for using ARPA money and that you only want those funds to be used in a standalone package? Legislators, by now, are planning on using ARPA money in the state budget. I wonder if I could get your thoughts on that tactic and ask if you would consider potentially detailing a budget bill if it includes some of the federal dollars? Well, I think I've made my feelings quite clear in the letter. I don't think I can offer any more to that. I'm opposed to utilizing the money other than for infrastructure. And again, I've allowed H315 to move forward because there was too much good in there, the areas that we had asked for funding to move forward with help in terms of the pandemic. But moving forward, I believe there are other paths. We have, when we presented our budget in January, we had a $200 million surplus at that point in time. And then we had presented some one-time initiatives, investments in that budget. We didn't know what was going to be coming. We had heard the Congress was talking about doing something, but we didn't know when that was going to be passed. So we presented our budget and with those, with the $200 million, that's since grown, by the way. Now there's going to be estimated, maybe $300 billion of surplus that we will have over and above what was projected. So there's plenty of money there to utilize as well in the other part of the ARPA. And again, I'm focusing on the billion dollars of flexible ARPA, but there's a lot of other money going to a lot of different programs, $1.7 billion going to other programs as well. So it's not as though we're neglecting any of the human needs here and investing in people. But everything that we've, you know, the five buckets that I talked about, whether it was housing or climate change or broadband or water, sewer, storm infrastructure, that all invests in needs of people. So these are clearly areas that we've talked about for a long time. And we have this once in a lifetime opportunity to use this money wisely and invest it in the future. There is other money available for programmatic needs. And that's, and I've proven, I guess, if you look back over the last four years that if I feel strongly about a situation, and the budget is not something that I agree with, I wouldn't hesitate to veto if it was something that I thought was detrimental to Vermonters. In your view, is the use of ARPA money in the budget one of those things? I'm not going to squander this opportunity. And I don't think Vermonters expect us to squander this opportunity either. Again, once in a lifetime opportunity, billion dollars and we could really make some changes that would be transformative for Vermont and a turning point in our economy and some of the needs that we have in this state. So I just think it would be unwise to do so. Thank you. That's it. All right, Ed will have to wait. Thank you very much for tuning in and we will be back on Friday. So thanks again.